I was sure it had something to do with sociopathy, but I was assured it doesn’t.
by pinkagendist
As I’ve mentioned previously I was sent to a psychologist/psychiatrist at an early age. I was a pre-adolescent. I didn’t say it, but I agreed that there was something different about me. The first doctors didn’t really work out. Then finally one treated me like an adult and things changed a bit. When the therapy ordeals began I got my hands on a DSM III. I went through the many options of personality disorder. I flirted with sociopathy for a while. The symptoms are:
- failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; (maybe not this one)
- deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; (or this one)
- impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead; (true at the time but not any more)
- irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; (I decided verbal assaults counted)
- reckless disregard for safety of self or others; (certainly)
- consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations; (certainly didn’t always do my homework)
- lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another (and also certainly)
You only need three of the symptoms to qualify; But then it ended with: The individual is at least aged 18 years old. That ruled me out, at least for a few years. My doctor insisted the DSM wasn’t a menu I could just pick from, but seemed impressed I’d taken an interest. My social interactions haven’t changed much since pre-adolescence. I feel a bit like I’m missing a gene. I don’t get the same pleasure from being in the presence of other people as most people seem to. Hence, sometimes I wonder if this pleasure is the result of a social construct, like the idea that parents always love their children (see Scott Forbes, a Natural History of Families), or if it’s genuine. I’m inclined to think it’s a social construct. When I observe social interactions (of the more bourgeois variety) I see (invariably) giver/taker relationships. Quite unlike amorous relationships which seem to have a more genuine desire of/for emotional complementation. When we first mentioned moving to France a few people said we shouldn’t, that we were a group, that they would consider buying a property wherever we went. I was quite astonished. I don’t feel that sort of connection, that would make me consider moving, to anyone but Mike. Again, I think, because the amorous social contract works well for me. There are no competing agendas. That doesn’t mean I don’t like people or don’t enjoy having conversations, just that general social interaction seems terribly futile (to me). I think that’s why blogging has appealed to me so much. It’s controlled and formatted. When an idea is stupid, I can just move along, or delete it if it came from me. When an idiot says something, I’m not obliged to smile and follow standard social norms. I find social norms suffocating. My doctor insisted that this aspect of my personality (unlike others) wasn’t pathology-related. My highs and lows can be explained by the DSM; My desire for never having to emotionally interact with a single person at a time in life cannot. Although I do enjoy formatted (written) intellectual interaction. It would have been quite nice if there were a diagnosis and I could have put a name to it and got a pill to treat it. It would’ve made mine and other people’s lives much easier. As it stands I have to endeavour to make sense out of it which leaves me with explanations like I’m emotionally parsimonious or I’m cold and uncaring. Other times I think it’s a quantitative issue. I put 100% of my energy into one relationship, so there’s nothing left for anyone else.
I started here a few years ago, and I realized that, for me, I was shielding my fear of rejection with insistent (false) indifference. I know that I need a significant amount of “alone time” in order to be able to deal with people without swearing constantly, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about them; I just prefer taking them in bite-size pieces.
Also, is your friend really serious about following you to France, or is she just trying to compliment you? It seems more of a rhetorical confirmation of friendship than an authentic prediction of future behavior. People have made similar comments to me about how destitute they will be in my absence, but the truth is that they do just fine without me.
I considered the fear of rejection angle, but I can’t logically apply it in my current life. People go to great lengths to be receptive to some degree in bourgeois society, or at least not to reject people openly. I’m afraid my indifference is sometimes quite real. One of my grandfathers died last year and I didn’t really feel anything even though I had nothing against him. Ever since I’ve wondered if I’d feel something when my mother died, and I’m not sure, but I’m leaning to the negative- even though we had a few nice moments and she writes to me regularly.
The friend actually looked into property, but I gently pointed out that the climate wasn’t what she enjoyed, and things went quiet.
Maybe you didn’t feel anything when your grandfather died because you didn’t have feelings for him when he was alive, and that’s okay. Society has this odd idea where we’re supposed to care about people we’re genetically related to.
Doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with you. It means you’re honest about your feelings.
It’s true, I didn’t really feel anything much for him before- but there’s this strange expectation that I ‘should’. That’s why I said it feels like I’m missing a gene. I don’t have this natural affection other people seem to have.
You’re not missing a gene. You’re just honest. The problem with most people is that they don’t admit to not having feelings.
Case in point: my uncle died recently. He was a bastard. Treated everyone he came in contact with like shit, cashiers, waitresses. He was an abusive alcoholic and beat his kids. No one liked him.
Yet, when he died, you would have thought we lost the greatest man who ever lived. My family staged TWO elaborate funerals, with people traveling thousands of miles to attend. His obit made it sound like he was father of the century.
I didn’t attend either of them because I freely admit I couldn’t stand him. I’m the only one.
That’s reassuring. I’m going to explore this more deeply…
I can relate to your impression that you are missing a gene. I often feel that way too. I have been accused of being cold and uncaring. I’ve always been unable to believe people who react kindly to me in public settings, would ever treat me so kindly out of the public eye. That it is only the social constraints that make them tolerate me.
I wasn’t aware of my father’s death until more than a year later. I found his obit while doing genealogy research. My name was not listed. Did I feel any sense of loss? No. Did I wonder if I was cold and heartless? Yes. My Mom in law and sister in law are both dying of COPD and other complications of a lifetime of smoking. Somehow I feel no sympathy for either one of them, and I feel as if I should. Social constraints again?
It’s the only logical explanation I can find…
Appletonavenue,
What you’re feeling is normal. It’s that everyone else is out there faking their feelings, or most people are.
If you didn’t have a relationship with any of them, why should you feel bad? Maybe you don’t like your in-laws.
I think it’s worse to pretend to have feelings when you don’t, than to be honest and admit you don’t any for someone.
Thanks, that’s sort of what I always thought. Nice to get it confirmed.
For some reason, our society wants us to care about certain people in our lives, like relatives or teachers. We are made to feel guilty if we don’t. Years ago, if you said you didn’t like your mother, people would have a fit. Now that’s more accepted as people realize mothers aren’t automatically saints.
Really interesting post, especially relating to the pleasures from being with other people. It sounds a bit like the “Schizoid” personality disorder perhaps? I know you said you did consider the various personality disorders, did you consider that one?
Sorry I can’t reply in more detail right now, the back of my head is feeling weird as if my brain has been over stimulated. But truly interesting post.
Sorry about the delay… your posts were in the spam folder for some unidentified reason. I flirted with schizoid pd too
It’s certainly the closest description of me- but my doctor thought other aspects of my personality were sufficient to dismiss the diagnosis. I’m not sure I agree with him entirely, although it’s true I do enjoy some forms of human interaction and having a partner. His conclusion was that I was a mild manic-depressive. As with most mental issues, there are usually layers of problems and there’s certainly a schizoid aspect to my personality.
My therapy years were a long while back, I’ve just looked up the new DSM-IV definition and then ended up on a page about the secret-schizoid (Ralph Klein), which I think might have brushed away my doctor’s objections. I’m going to explore this because it looks like it could be a good explanation.
Definitely sounds like it’s worth exploring for you! Good luck with it.
[...] As I’ve mentioned previously I was sent to a psychologist/psychiatrist at an early age. I was a pre-adolescent. I didn’t say it, but I agreed that there was something different about me… [...]
I shared some of your early issues but discovered (at about age 40) by using various techniques that I’d been sexually abused as a young child. This made a lot of sense and I changed somewhat after this discovery. Of course, some members of my family didn’t want to hear this and things have been difficult ever since, but I’m much stronger and happy with who I am
I always understood the issue in my family. Children were basically unimportant, adults were selfish and went off and did whatever they wanted- and for company I spent all my time in the kitchen. So I guess it was a rather conscious (and early) realization of being unwanted.
Tell me more about your abuse re-discovery episode. I’ve always been curious about the repressed memory phenomena. Are you confident about your conclusion?
Can I tell you tomorrow? I’m worn out tonight – my eyes are sore and need to go to bed. Am not copping out but looking forward to explaining.
Yes I’m confident, and I can even remember being born…
More tomorrow mate
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
good night!
My highs and lows can be explained by the DSM; My desire for never having to emotionally interact with a single person at a time in life cannot.
What else did your doctor have to say about your focus on one person? I’m curious because that is precisely what I do and what I expect from my partner. Consequently, the relationship seems much more fulfilling and I do not have to deal with the “competing agendas” you mentioned or worry about meeting the obligations inherent in friendships, which do not seem worth the effort given how little I get out of them. I have developed several reasons for why I do this, but they are all really post-hoc justifications that may be completely unrelated to the actual reason(s).
He said I had a more analytical/systemizing mind than the average person. I didn’t understand it in detail then, but recently I acquainted myself with Baron-Cohen’s (not Borat) studies and tests on the systemizing vs. empathic mind. The average woman scores 24 on systemizing, the average man scores 30. My score was 48.
I have the impression people with more analytical minds see the world in more mathematical terms. So if there are 3 points for the friend and four points against, the friend is out. The more empathic mind is more preoccupied with being liked, fitting in and following traditions.
Do the test (it’s the 3rd down the page and once you finish it it’ll take you to the second part S/Q automatically):
http://www.genderdynamix.co.za/component/option,com_gdxgendertest/Itemid,206/
Then tell me the results, so we can compare
36 on S/Q. I have a problem with some of the questions that the test asked, but it’s not really important.
It is not clear to me how an analytical mind alone would lead to putting all of one’s effort into a single romantic relationship. There would need to be other factors. Perhaps these factors vary too greatly from one person to another for me to gain any insight from your doctor’s analysis. Is that really all he said?
I was in therapy for a decade, so he said a whole lot more than ‘analytical mind’. He was a proponent of psychological noology, so his approach was not mainstream. It was about dissociation. His theory was that if an individual could recognize what was reality and what was pathology related then (with practice) the person could have some control over what was happening in their lives and how they reacted. It involved teaching me logic when I was 11 years old, and a whole lot of live experimentation. This approach cured me 100% of OCD behaviour and has reduced OCD ideation to only extremely stressful occasions. Every time since when I’ve thought I should use this glass not that glass (or go in through the back door instead of the front door), an alarm goes off in my head that says: “that’s not you, it’s a defective thought process”.
The same was true of human relations. He didn’t make a value judgement on whether more relations were better than less relations, but he insisted that I logically prove why one method was better or more productive for me than another. I guess that means he was more about teaching me to deal with things rather than explain them. But in that spirit I can make very good arguments for reduced social/familial circles. There’s no such thing as unconditional (or limitless) love (your post on unconditional love is how I ended up at your blog, coincidently). Human resources, emotions and time can be quantified. I feel that on my schedule, introducing other forms of relationships is counter-productive. In the model that works for me it’s a very high investment but also a very high reward. The friendship and social acquaintance model requires medium or low investments, sometimes for no reward whatsoever. In fact, sometimes you come out at a loss.
That’s a decent approach. Rather than start off with his idea of how a mentally “healthy” person should think or act, he got you to assess your desires and beliefs and adjust your behavior accordingly. Rather than try to identify the cause of your behavior and work to overcome it, he urged you to care about justifying your behavior so that you could live with it. It’s all about adaptation. I’m all for that.
However, I see one potential danger in his approach: rationalization. People often use logic to avoid dealing with their problems. Logic is, after all, just a tool; what one does with it varies. Someone with a phobia, for example, might convince himself that it is better to avoid the problem than face it. Sometimes it is appropriate for an objective third party to make value judgments for you simply because he has a clearer sense of what you want and believe than you do or because, in his experience with others, your desires are harmful. (Of course, there is nothing wrong with using one approach for one set of patients and a different approach for a different set.)
That is why I am curious about the causes behind our focus on a single relationship. We can both justify our behavior according to our beliefs and desires, but it is possible that our justifications are rationalizations of the irrational. I have certainly convinced myself that there is no reason to change–and perhaps that is good enough. Still, I like to be able to answer all of the “whys” that come to mind.
Thanks for the response.
I think his role during therapy was precisely that of moderator. Rationalizations not allowed. He did make clear I had to always test my ideas and arguments on an (or more than one) uninterested party. A bit like peer review. I must be able to convince a jury. If I can’t, there’s a problem. Many years ago I had a friend who was unbiased enough to play that role. Now it’s my partner who plays devil’s advocate to my mind.
Do you think the rational argument for the focus on one individual is lacking in substance? If so, I would counter that the status-quo (relationships for reasons of blood or geography) are more less rational. I observe an infinity of relationships (daily) that are either pointless or destructive, or a bit of each. Isn’t zero the point with which we should start secular analysis? If we start with the premise that tradition is the established standard of goodness… we don’t end up in a good place.
Do you think the rational argument for the focus on one individual is lacking in substance?
No, but it might be an excuse for a behavior that manifested before you could develop justifications for it. (I don’t know you well enough to say.) For example: a person with a phobia regarding heights can argue that the fear is reasonable because falling from a great height is deadly. Regardless of the validity of the justification, however, the phobia preceded it and therefore had a basis in something else.
I tell myself that I focus on one relationship for a compelling set of reasons. That set of reasons would be good enough for me to not want to change even if I discovered that I have some kind of “chemical imbalance” or developed poorly because I was not socialized well as a child. Still, I wonder about the causes because they contributed to who I am today.
In short: I am not really arguing with you.
I knew you weren’t arguing… I’m just curious too. Do you ever attempt relationships other than your partner?
One of the behavioural experiments the doctor forced me into was socializing. It was repeated a number of times in my teens but the results were always the same. I re-tested it on my own after his death for a prolonged period of two years in which I emulated average social behaviour. I accepted invitations and reciprocated, forced myself to speak on the phone with people, participated in the community etc. So the capability is there, but at the end of the two years I still found it wasn’t a generally positive experience.
I did find that there are certain personality types that I’m comfortable enough with that I didn’t feel the need to exclude them from my life at the end of the experiment.
The ones I did exclude were overly concerned with social hierarchy and competition (very common in suburban/bourgeois society). I also excluded those with a lot of baggage, who visit their problems on others regularly. That being said I could leave to another country tomorrow and never see anyone again and not miss anyone.
Someone suggested in the comments that I investigate schizoid personality disorder, do some of the symptoms match you?
I don’t attempt to have other relationships. Part of my reasoning is that other relationships would detract from the one I already have in the sense that I would be spending time and forming memories with other people that my wife would not share. For the same reason, I don’t want her to be invested in other relationships. We have engaged with others online together, but that requires little investment.
I also have very few interests, am incapable of excitement and almost entirely incapable of empathy for humans (though not other animals), and am inclined to criticize just about everything. This hasn’t stopped people from trying to get to know me, but it has meant that we go our separate ways because our interests are too different.
Additionally, I can’t stand to be in groups. The dynamics, the noise, and the division of attention (no one is completely focused on one other person, which is my preferred form of conversation because I’m “selfish” and struggle with multi-tasking) all stress me.
Of course, I also have no interest in friendship. I am quite content with my few solitary hobbies and time with my wife within the comfort of my own home.
The DSM’s description of the schizoid personality does sound like me, though my relationship with my wife might be anomalous.
Fascinating. I’d say almost the same of myself. I have very intense relationships with my dogs. The exceptions in the diagnostic criteria to my own life are a relationship, interest in sex and enjoyment of activities. There are things I quite enjoy. My doctor did heavily criticize the methodology of the DSM. He thought there should be a differentiation between labelling the individual and whichever variation of ideation one succumbs to; But I suppose a manual of diagnostic criteria needs to have some sort of parameters.
We should be neighbours, then we could entirely ignore each other all the time
I would be very close with a dog if I had one. Unfortunately, my apartment complex doesn’t allow them. Instead, I have to be content with caring for others’ dogs while they’re on vacation. It is one of only a handful of activities that I can say actually make me happy, even though it doesn’t offer the intellectual stimulation that I usually require to avoid boredom.
And here’s to neighbors who mind their own business.
[...] “I was sure it had something to do with sociopathy, but I was assured it doesn’t” from “The Pink Agendist” [...]